82 FR 57698 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Possible Effects of Court Decision on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Conterminous United States
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 234 (December 7, 2017)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 234 (December 7, 2017)
| Page Range | 57698-57699 | |
| FR Document | 2017-25995 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 57698-57699] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-25995] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089; FXES11130900000C6-178-FF09E42000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Possible Effects of Court Decision on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Conterminous United States AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Regulatory review; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are seeking public comment on a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that may impact our June 30, 2017, final rule delisting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear Distinct Population Segment (DPS). In Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., the court opined that the Service had not evaluated the status of the remainder of the listed entity of wolves in light of the Western Great Lakes (WGL) wolf DPS delisting action and what the effect of lost historical range may have on the status of the WGL wolf DPS. We also describe in this notice our strategy to recover grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower 48 States of the United States and provide a brief recovery update for each ecosystem. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked by the end of the day on January 8, 2018. ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, ATTN: FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R6- ES-2017-0089. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, Missoula, MT 59812; by telephone (406) 243-4903. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In 1975, the Service listed the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as threatened in the lower 48 United States (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). On June 30, 2017, the Service published a final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017; RIN 1018-BA41) designating the GYE population of grizzly bears as a DPS, finding that the DPS was recovered, and removing that DPS from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The final rule became effective on July 31, 2017, and remains in effect. Grizzly bears in the remaining area of the lower 48 States remain listed as threatened under the ESA as amended. The status of any grizzly bear population may be changed only through formal rulemaking. On August 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling, Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that affirmed the prior judgement of the district court vacating the 2011 delisting rule for wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) (76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011). The 2011 rule designated the gray wolf population in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as portions of six surrounding States, as the WGL DPS, determined that the WGL DPS was recovered, and delisted the WGL as a DPS. This court opinion may impact the GYE final rule, which also designated a portion of an already-listed entity as a DPS and then revised the listed entity by removing the DPS due to recovery. Therefore, we are reviewing the potential implications for the GYE final rule in light of the Humane Society ruling. We are seeking public comment on this subject (see Request for Public Comments). Below we summarize our recovery strategy to assist the public in providing public comment on the impacts that Humane Society might have on grizzly bear. Recovery Strategy The grizzly bear was originally distributed in various habitats throughout Western North America from Central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. Current distribution in the lower 48 States consists of five small populations with an estimated total population of 1,800 bears. The 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, p. 15) identified seven grizzly bear ecosystems, including five with either self- perpetuating or existing populations and two additional areas, the Bitterroot Mountains in Idaho and the San Juan Mountains in Colorado, where grizzly bears are known to have existed in the recent past. While no resident population currently exists in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, that ecosystem contains adequate habitat to sustain a population. The Recovery Plan suggests that further evaluation is needed on the status of the San Juan Mountains, where no grizzly bears exist today (USFWS 1993, p.16). The Service's overarching vision for recovery of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States, to recover and delist populations individually in each of the ecosystems as recovery is achieved, was outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, pp. 16, 33) and further discussed in our 2011 5-year status review (USFWS 2011, pp. 12-14). The review also found that the lower-48-State listing is consistent with our 1996 DPS Policy and recommended that the current entity, on the whole, should retain its threatened status (USFWS 2011, p. 104). We recognized that sufficient evidence exists to support multiple DPSs within the lower- 48-State listing, but indicated that further subdivision of the lower- 48-State listing was unnecessary at the time (USFWS 2011, p. 14). Prior to the 5-year status review, the Service had attempted to delist the GYE grizzly bear population as a DPS (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007). That determination was subsequently vacated by the Federal District Court for the District of Montana (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen et al., 672 F.Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009), and the vacatur was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Greater [[Page 57699]] Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). The 2011 5-year status review also committed to an evaluation of potential DPSs within the lower-48-State listing to determine whether they are near the point where rulemaking is warranted or appropriate (e.g., when recovery is achieved and delisting may be warranted; or when listing funds become available to address those populations for which we determined that reclassifying to endangered status was warranted but precluded) (USFWS 2011, p. 14). The GYE was the first ecosystem to achieve recovery and was the first population to be delisted. Recovery Status There are approximately 1,800 grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. The population and legal status under the ESA of each ecosystem is as follows: (1) The GYE: Had approximately 695 bears in 2016 (Van Manen and Harodson 2017, p. 3)--delisted due to recovery July 31, 2017 (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017); (2) The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem: Had approximately 960 bears in 2014 (Costello et al. 2017, p. 2)--still listed as threatened (likely biologically recovered, although no decision has been made); (3) The Selkirk Ecosystem: Had approximately 70-80 bears in 2016 (Kasworm et al. 2017)--still listed as threatened; (4) The Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem: Had approximately 56 bears in 2016 (Kasworm et al. 2017)--warranted-but-precluded for uplisting to endangered (August 22, 2017, court order); (5) The North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE): Contains no confirmed grizzly bears in the United States (U.S. DOI 2016) and an estimated 6 individuals in the adjacent British Columbia portion of the NCE (MFLNRO 2012)--warranted-but-precluded for endangered status (81 FR 87264, December 2, 2016); (6) The Bitterroot Ecosystem: Currently unoccupied (IGBC 2015)-- Nonessential Experimental Population Area (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000). Next Steps and Timing The Service is evaluating the Court's ruling in Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., in the context of our final determination regarding the GYE grizzly bear final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017) to consider what impact, if any, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling has on the GYE grizzly bear final rule and what further evaluation should be considered regarding the issues raised in Humane Society. We will address public comments and notify the public of our conclusions by March 31, 2018. The GYE final delisting rule will remain in effect during this review process, and the status of grizzly bears throughout the rest of the range will remain unchanged. Request for Public Comments We invite written comments on the manner in which the Humane Society decision may affect the GYE grizzly bear final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017). Specifically, we are interested in public input on whether the Humane Society opinion affects the GYE grizzly bear final rule and what, if any, further evaluation the Service should consider regarding the remaining grizzly bear populations and lost historical range in light of the Service's decision regarding the GYE grizzly bear. We request comments from any interested party that pertain to the issues raised in the preceding paragraph only. We will consider all comments received by the date specified in DATES. You must submit your comments and supporting materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax, or written comments sent to an address other than the one listed in ADDRESSES. Public Availability of Comments If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request that we withhold this information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). References Cited A complete list of all reference cited herein is available at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0089, or upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Authority: This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: November 1, 2017. Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising Authority of Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2017-25995 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
![57698 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules
or in any other area where EPA or an DATES: We will accept comments by removing the DPS due to recovery.
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a received or postmarked by the end of Therefore, we are reviewing the
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of the day on January 8, 2018. potential implications for the GYE final
Indian country, the rule does not have ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You rule in light of the Humane Society
tribal implications and will not impose may submit comments by one of the ruling. We are seeking public comment
substantial direct costs on tribal following methods: on this subject (see Request for Public
governments or preempt tribal law as • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments). Below we summarize our
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Comments Processing, ATTN: FWS–R6– recovery strategy to assist the public in
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). ES–2017–0089, U.S. Fish and Wildlife providing public comment on the
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, impacts that Humane Society might
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Falls Church, Virginia 22041–3803. have on grizzly bear.
Environmental protection, Air • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Recovery Strategy
pollution control, Incorporation by www.regulations.gov. Follow the
reference, Intergovernmental relations, instructions for submitting comments to The grizzly bear was originally
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2017–0089. distributed in various habitats
Reporting and recordkeeping FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: throughout Western North America
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery from Central Mexico to the Arctic
organic compounds. Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ocean. Current distribution in the lower
Dated: November 17, 2017. Service, University Hall, Room 309, 48 States consists of five small
Robert A. Kaplan, Missoula, MT 59812; by telephone (406) populations with an estimated total
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 243–4903. Persons who use a population of 1,800 bears. The 1993
telecommunications device for the deaf Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS
[FR Doc. 2017–26304 Filed 12–6–17; 8:45 am]
may call the Federal Relay Service at 1993, p. 15) identified seven grizzly bear
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
(800) 877–8339. ecosystems, including five with either
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: self-perpetuating or existing populations
and two additional areas, the Bitterroot
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background Mountains in Idaho and the San Juan
In 1975, the Service listed the grizzly Mountains in Colorado, where grizzly
Fish and Wildlife Service bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) under the bears are known to have existed in the
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. recent past. While no resident
50 CFR Part 17 1531 et seq.) as threatened in the lower population currently exists in the
48 United States (40 FR 31734, July 28, Bitterroot Ecosystem, that ecosystem
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2017–0089; 1975). On June 30, 2017, the Service contains adequate habitat to sustain a
FXES11130900000C6–178–FF09E42000] published a final rule (82 FR 30502, population. The Recovery Plan suggests
June 30, 2017; RIN 1018–BA41) that further evaluation is needed on the
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife status of the San Juan Mountains, where
and Plants; Possible Effects of Court designating the GYE population of
grizzly bears as a DPS, finding that the no grizzly bears exist today (USFWS
Decision on Grizzly Bear Recovery in 1993, p.16).
the Conterminous United States DPS was recovered, and removing that
DPS from the Federal List of The Service’s overarching vision for
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. recovery of grizzly bears in the lower 48
Interior. The final rule became effective on July States, to recover and delist populations
ACTION: Regulatory review; request for 31, 2017, and remains in effect. Grizzly individually in each of the ecosystems
comments. bears in the remaining area of the lower as recovery is achieved, was outlined in
48 States remain listed as threatened the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, pp.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and under the ESA as amended. The status 16, 33) and further discussed in our
Wildlife Service (Service), are seeking of any grizzly bear population may be 2011 5-year status review (USFWS 2011,
public comment on a recent D.C. Circuit changed only through formal pp. 12–14). The review also found that
Court of Appeals ruling, Humane rulemaking. the lower-48-State listing is consistent
Society of the United States, et al. v. On August 1, 2017, the Court of with our 1996 DPS Policy and
Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. Appeals for the District of Columbia recommended that the current entity, on
2017), that may impact our June 30, Circuit issued a ruling, Humane Society the whole, should retain its threatened
2017, final rule delisting the Greater of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et status (USFWS 2011, p. 104). We
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that recognized that sufficient evidence
bear Distinct Population Segment (DPS). affirmed the prior judgement of the exists to support multiple DPSs within
In Humane Society of the United States, district court vacating the 2011 delisting the lower-48-State listing, but indicated
et al. v. Zinke et al., the court opined rule for wolves in the Western Great that further subdivision of the lower-48-
that the Service had not evaluated the Lakes (WGL) (76 FR 81666, December State listing was unnecessary at the time
status of the remainder of the listed 28, 2011). The 2011 rule designated the (USFWS 2011, p. 14). Prior to the 5-year
entity of wolves in light of the Western gray wolf population in Minnesota, status review, the Service had attempted
Great Lakes (WGL) wolf DPS delisting Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as to delist the GYE grizzly bear
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
action and what the effect of lost portions of six surrounding States, as population as a DPS (72 FR 14866,
historical range may have on the status the WGL DPS, determined that the WGL March 29, 2007). That determination
of the WGL wolf DPS. We also describe DPS was recovered, and delisted the was subsequently vacated by the
in this notice our strategy to recover WGL as a DPS. Federal District Court for the District of
grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in This court opinion may impact the Montana (Greater Yellowstone Coalition
the lower 48 States of the United States GYE final rule, which also designated a v. Servheen et al., 672 F.Supp. 2d 1105
and provide a brief recovery update for portion of an already-listed entity as a (D. Mont. 2009), and the vacatur was
each ecosystem. DPS and then revised the listed entity upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Greater
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM 07DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57932/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 57699
Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et comments and notify the public of our Dated: November 1, 2017.
al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). conclusions by March 31, 2018. The Stephen Guertin,
The 2011 5-year status review also GYE final delisting rule will remain in Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
committed to an evaluation of potential effect during this review process, and Service, Exercising Authority of Director, U.S.
DPSs within the lower-48-State listing the status of grizzly bears throughout Fish and Wildlife Service.
to determine whether they are near the the rest of the range will remain [FR Doc. 2017–25995 Filed 12–6–17; 8:45 am]
point where rulemaking is warranted or unchanged. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
appropriate (e.g., when recovery is
Request for Public Comments
achieved and delisting may be
warranted; or when listing funds We invite written comments on the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
become available to address those manner in which the Humane Society
populations for which we determined decision may affect the GYE grizzly bear National Oceanic and Atmospheric
that reclassifying to endangered status final rule (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017). Administration
was warranted but precluded) (USFWS Specifically, we are interested in public
2011, p. 14). The GYE was the first input on whether the Humane Society 50 CFR Chapter III
ecosystem to achieve recovery and was opinion affects the GYE grizzly bear
final rule and what, if any, further [Docket No. 170925942–7999–01]
the first population to be delisted.
evaluation the Service should consider RIN 0648–BH30
Recovery Status regarding the remaining grizzly bear
There are approximately 1,800 grizzly populations and lost historical range in International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna
bears in the lower 48 States. The light of the Service’s decision regarding Fisheries; Revised 2018 Commercial
population and legal status under the the GYE grizzly bear. Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin
ESA of each ecosystem is as follows: We request comments from any Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean;
(1) The GYE: Had approximately 695 interested party that pertain to the 2018 Catch Limit
bears in 2016 (Van Manen and issues raised in the preceding paragraph
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Harodson 2017, p. 3)—delisted due to only. We will consider all comments
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
recovery July 31, 2017 (82 FR 30502, received by the date specified in DATES.
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
June 30, 2017); You must submit your comments and
(2) The Northern Continental Divide Commerce.
supporting materials by one of the
Ecosystem: Had approximately 960 methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
bears in 2014 (Costello et al. 2017, p. not consider comments sent by email or comments.
2)—still listed as threatened (likely fax, or written comments sent to an SUMMARY: The National Marine
biologically recovered, although no address other than the one listed in Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing
decision has been made); ADDRESSES. regulations under the Tuna Conventions
(3) The Selkirk Ecosystem: Had Act to revise trip limits on the
approximately 70–80 bears in 2016 Public Availability of Comments
commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna
(Kasworm et al. 2017)—still listed as If you submit a comment via http://
applicable to 2018. U.S. commercial
threatened; www.regulations.gov, your entire
fishing vessels are subject to a biennial
(4) The Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem: Had comment—including any personal
limit for 2017 and 2018. Preliminary
approximately 56 bears in 2016 identifying information—will be posted
estimates indicate that the catch limit in
(Kasworm et al. 2017)—warranted-but- on the Web site. If you submit a
2018 is approximately 120 metric tons
precluded for uplisting to endangered hardcopy comment that includes
(mt). To avoid exceeding the biennial
(August 22, 2017, court order); personal identifying information, you
(5) The North Cascades Ecosystem limit, NMFS is proposing a 1-mt trip
may request that we withhold this
(NCE): Contains no confirmed grizzly limit—except for large-mesh drift gillnet
information from public review, but we
bears in the United States (U.S. DOI vessels, which would be subject to a 2-
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
2016) and an estimated 6 individuals in mt trip limit—throughout 2018 or until
do so. We will post all hardcopy
the adjacent British Columbia portion of the 2018 catch limit is reached and the
comments on http://
the NCE (MFLNRO 2012)—warranted- fishery is closed. This action is
www.regulations.gov. Comments and
but-precluded for endangered status (81 necessary to contribute to the rebuilding
materials we receive will be available
FR 87264, December 2, 2016); of Pacific bluefin tuna and for the
for public inspection at http://
(6) The Bitterroot Ecosystem: United States to satisfy its obligations as
www.regulations.gov, or by
Currently unoccupied (IGBC 2015)— a member of the Inter-American
appointment, during normal business
Nonessential Experimental Population Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
hours, at the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Area (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000). Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
CONTACT). and supporting documents must be
Next Steps and Timing submitted in writing by January 8, 2018.
The Service is evaluating the Court’s References Cited ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
ruling in Humane Society of the United A complete list of all reference cited on this document, identified by NOAA–
States, et al. v. Zinke et al., in the herein is available at https:// NMFS–2017–0128, by either of the
context of our final determination www.regulations.gov in Docket No. following methods:
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
regarding the GYE grizzly bear final rule FWS–R6–ES–2017–0089, or upon • Electronic Submission: Submit all
(82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017) to consider request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery electronic public comments via the
what impact, if any, the D.C. Circuit Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
Court of Appeal ruling has on the GYE CONTACT). http://www.regulations.gov/#!
grizzly bear final rule and what further Authority: This document is published docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-
evaluation should be considered under the authority of the Endangered 0128, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
regarding the issues raised in Humane Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et complete the required fields, and enter
Society. We will address public seq.). or attach your comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM 07DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57932/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2017-12-07 00:35:04
Document Modified: 2017-12-07 00:35:04
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Regulatory review; request for comments. | |
| Dates | We will accept comments received or postmarked by the end of the day on January 8, 2018. | |
| Contact | Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, Missoula, MT 59812; by telephone (406) 243-4903. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 57698 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR